Tag Archives: Pope Paul VI

Featured

For a number of years, an increasing disdain for the wonderful differences between men and women has led to a number of inventions ranging from unisex clothing to gender-neutral names (which have increased by 60% in the last ten years1). In most cases, the blurring of the sexes is not a conscious challenge to God’s wisdom in creating two genders. It is, nevertheless, surprising in that celebrating the differences between men and women has been has been the healthy norm historically.

Why Not One Blended Gender?

But society’s changes seem to be asking this: “Why not move toward making ourselves androgynous2 beings instead of having the two genders?”

A Jewish insight understands a need for two genders: “The answer is that in order to maximize giving, the recipient must be different from the giver. If the two are identical, giving can occur, but it is limited. One would give based on his or her own needs, since the receiver would have the exact same needs. To truly be a giver, the person must take into account what the receiver needs and not only what the giver wants. By giving to someone with different needs, a person is trained to think and give on terms other than his or her own.”3

Summarized from a Christian source: “’Being man’ or ‘being woman’ is a reality which is good and willed by God.”4

Trends Making it More Difficult to Distinguish Between Male and Female

Thus, there seems to be no reason to oppose the manifestation of two distinct genders unless one has an agenda. Unfortunately, they exist.

It can arise from a resignation as a result of society’s faults: “Strange as it sounds, this simply states what religious rhetoric assumes; that the men form the legitimate body of the community, while women are allowed to participate only when they assimilate themselves to men.”5

In some cases, it springs from a dislike of marriage as the Communism has: “The Party did all it could to push women into industry. The bourgeois family as a social unit was to be made obsolete .”6

It can simply come from a clothes designer who has no concern for the ultimate well-being of those who are unsure of their “gender identity” but profits from it under the guise of a desire to prevent the stifling of artistic imagination.7

“This book will train you to think … like a guy. Because dating has always been a guy’s world, until now.”8

Or it can originate from a trend with no logical purpose: “Gender neutral makeup is on the rise. Brands like Enter Pronoun are leading the unisex cosmetics category with their selection of concealers, bronzers and eye liners.9

Reasons Given for Blurring Gender Distinction

“…masculine names are often associated with success, for instance, which might explain why parents historically chose androgynous names for girls.”10

“Additionally, a study from Clemson University showed that women with more traditionally male names made more successful lawyers and judges than women with more feminine names.”11

“SE Hinton (Susan Eloise), DC Fontana (Dorothy Catherine), PN Elrod (Patricia Nead) and KA Applegate, to name but a few, have all ditched their first names to improve their chances of success in genres dominated by male writers.”12

“You see, I’ve learned that you can’t land a man by reading all those female-empowerment books or women’s magazines. In fact, you have to avoid those all together. The way to land a guy is to think, act, and react … like a guy.
“Have you ever seen a man get all goo-goo gaga over a baby in a grocery store line? No!… Have you ever been three dates into a relationship and had a guy tell you his real desire in life is to quit his job and be a stay at home dad? Absolutely not!”8

“Because I felt that being a woman was an obstacle, I wanted to become gender-neutral. It became my way of tricking the system.” 13

“Millennials are an open-minded and accepting group, and they don’t want their children to feel pressured to conform to stereotypes that might be restrictive.”1

Some Unintended, But Very Real Negative Consequences

To reiterate, most who have joined the gender-neutral parade aren’t intending to challenge the natural complementary design of men and women. However, the absence of bad intentions cannot insulate us against the inevitable consequences of attempting to redefine the inherent natures of the genders.

Dating:

Psychologist Dr. John Gray, first renowned for his book, “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus,” wrote follow ups including the book, “Mars and Venus on a Date.” In this one, he included the developing practice that many men and women reverse roles in dating. These men are under the false impression that women should be pleasing them instead of the other way around.

As he wrote: “A man hungers for the opportunity to make a woman happy. Her happiness is his happiness… In relating to her, whatever will make her happiest makes him happy. If he detects that her mission is to please him, he will also focus on how she can please him… If she wants to pursue him, he will happily sit back and passively receive what she wants to give… Whenever a woman pursues a man more than he is pursuing her, he will pursue her less. Why should he risk failure when she is happy to pursue him? Automatically, he will relax more and become more passive about the relationship. Instead of thinking what she may want, he begins thinking more about what he wants. This turnaround is very confusing for a woman because her assertive approach is successful in the working world but backfires on a date. “14

Negative effects of a “non-traditional” family environment:

An environment which teaches sexual norms different from Natural Law accelerates the incidences of disordered behavior. Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J. noted this a couple of years ago on EWTN radio. Homosexuals comprise about 2.5% of the U.S. population. However, children of same-sex parents have a 25% rate of homosexuality. Thus, environment can be a much more powerful force than genetics.

With the increased popularity of gender-neutral concepts, should we be surprised that we also have an increase in gender-confused individuals?

Exacerbating the situation are those who deny the human track record that most adolescents will outgrow these feelings on their own or with moderate intervention.15 Sadly, states and cities have passed ordinances prohibiting any counseling for those experiencing disordered emotions.16, 17

Children’s names:

Ironically, there’s a comical side to the unintended consequences of gender-neutral trends when it comes to naming children. It has been the tradition for a multitude of generations to name children with names from recent ancestors, saints or names which had special meaning.

The current trend encourages applying traditional boys’ names to girl children — which have meanings the parents probably would have avoided had they done some research. Examples:

Without a doubt, men have historically had disproportionate advantages over women in some aspects of life. However, the only effective way to remedy this is through a better awareness of the dignity of ALL humans. Attacking the problem of disrespect solely with a treatment of the superficial aspects of life has only created new problems.

Take the case of the “unfairness” that women are at greater risk of “difficulties” (i.e. pregnancy) because of sex.

The secular humanistic solution was not to increase the cooperation between men and women and a mutual understanding of the reproductive cycle in order to be prudently open to life.25 Rather, it decided to develop chemical and mechanical means to block conception so that women could be more like men in their approach to on-demand sex.

The result? As Pope Paul VI predicted in his encyclical Humanae Vitae almost fifty years ago:

“Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” 26

In addition, we see birth control leading to increase in some female cancers and a decrease in some.27 Want to gamble?

Lastly, the significant decrease of commitment on the part of men toward women has resulted in many more of babies being born out of wedlock — creating the dysfunctional families which devastate society far more than guns can.

The lesson is that re-engineering the natural world is not going to achieve social and economic fairness with the sexes. Rather, we need to use our supposed superior intelligence to solve the root problems directly with honest communication and leave the natural order of things to the Creator.

1 – “Unisex baby names are nothing new, but they are officially the hottest trend of 2016.

6 – Quote of Bella Dodd (1904-1969) who was an “open [Communist] Party leader taken from page 44 of “Takedown,” or how the left has sabotaged family and marriage, by Paul Kengor Ph.D., WND Books; Washington, D.C., 2015.

7 – “I’ve never personally designed anything with the intention of catering only to those who self-identify within a set gender binary. But as a handmade designer who still sells on Etsy, I’ve noticed there’s no option for posting a skirt or dress or even a body chain that isn’t gendered. Checking that box makes me feel as though I am imposing limits on my designs and those who want to wear them, which I definitely don’t support. “ From “7 Gender Non Conformist & Gender Neutral Clothing Brands To Support Right Now,” by Alysse Dalessandro, https://www.bustle.com/articles/100668-7-gender-non-conformist-gender-neutral-clothing-brands-to-support-right-now, 8/31/2015.

13 – Quote from Heloise Letissier in the 10/17/2016 issue of Time magazine.

14 – Excerpts from pages 43, 178 and 254 of “Mars and Venus on a Date,” by John Gray, PhD, HarperCollins Publishers; New York, NY, 1997.

15 – “Gender identity disorder generally begin [sic] to manifest between the ages of two and four, in which a child displays a preference for the clothing and typical activities of the opposite sex and also prefer playmates of the opposite sex… Most children outgrow gender identity disorder with time and the influence of their parents and peers. Adolescents with gender identity disorder are prone to low self-esteem, social isolation, and distress, and are especially vulnerable to depression and suicide… Both male and female transsexuals may elect to alter their primary and secondary sexual characteristics by undergoing surgery to make their genitals as much like those of the opposite sex as possible… The operation itself is accompanied by hormone treatments that aid in acquiring the secondary sex characteristics of the desired sex. While a number of individuals have gone on to lead happy, productive lives following sex-change operations, others fail to make the transition and continue to suffer from gender identity disorder.” From “Gender Identity Disorder,” http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/274/Gender-Identity-Disorder.html

16 – [New Jersey] “A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling under Title 45 of the Revised Statutes, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person’s professional training for any of these professions, shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.” “New Jersey bans conversion therapy,” by Cristan Williams, http://transadvocate.com/new-jersey-bans-trans-conversion-therapy_n_10039.htm. 8/21/2013

17 – “Today, the Cincinnati City Council became the first city to ban the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion therapy. The historic ordinance imposes a $200 a day fine on anyone practicing conversion therapy on LGBTQ youth.” “Cincinnati Becomes First City to Ban Conversion Therapy,” by Hayley Miller, http://www.hrc.org/blog/cincinnati-becomes-first-city-to-ban-conversion-therapy, 12/9/2015.

25 – “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

From Section 10 of Humanae Vitae, given by Pope Paul VI on July 25, 1968.

The Tuesday April 7, 2015 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer printed Carolyn Hax’s advice to a young woman who had been dating a guy for five years. She is currently living with him and they are planning to be married.

The Perceived Problem

She was upset because she had learned from a previous girlfriend of his that he had taken this woman on a first date “to a really expensive restaurant (one I have expressed an interest in, but that he always said cost too much). On our first date we went to a mediocre restaurant.”

This led her to write “I feel like crap since I found this out, like he thought she was better.”

Ms. Hax brought up the possibility that perhaps “he was in better financial shape back then, or dumber about how he spent his money.” She added he might have not taken her “seriously when scheduling that first date,” then later changed his mind about her. She tried to help “Second-Class Citizen” gain confidence by saying she shouldn’t need a fancy restaurant to feel good about herself.

The Real Problem

Sadly, this exchange completely missed the most serious issue in the couple’s relationship and one that most “liberated women” of today fail to realize. The lack of respect did not stem from the trivial issue of those first dates. Rather, it began when she accepted the deceptive and cleverly wrapped belief that truly modern women show their power and independence by allowing men to use their bodies without the proper commitment of lifelong fidelity due to a lady.1 Major contradiction.

The Solution

“Second-Class Citizen” and millions like her could prevent serious damage to their sense of self-worth by recalling the lesson from the famous dialogue attributed to either George Bernard Shaw or Winston Churchill, depending on the source:

“ Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?”
“My goodness, Well, I’d certainly think about it.”
“Would you sleep with me for a pound?”
“Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!”
“Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”2

The dignity of the human person dictates that no one is to be used by another. When a guy lives with a woman in all ways married except the vows, he is doing just that.

1 – Assuming that artificial contraceptives are used in most unmarried living arrangements, the decreasing respect for women was predicted in 1968: “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” By Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, section 17 under “Consequences of Artificial Methods,” http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html

New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo is undoubtedly making his father, former New York governor Mario, proud by continuing in his dad’s very un-Catholic rationalizations on major social issues.1,2

Caustic Cuomo

In The Capitol Pressroom radio show last Friday, Andrew Cuomo said that Conservative Republicans with their right-wing views have no place in New York because “that’s not what New Yorkers are.” The New York Post reported that he answered his own “Who are they ?” question with “Right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” He tried to appear conciliatory by adding that moderate Republicans, like those in his state’s senate have a place in their state.3

Cuomo’s officials said that the governor’s remarks were not aimed at the general population, but only against “extremist” candidates. It’s “fine” if Republicans oppose abortion, gun control and gay marriage. It’s just that 70% of New Yorkers believe otherwise.3

Severe Exaggeration of Those Protecting Gun Rights

First, let’s start with the most secular issue at hand — gun control. Cuomo tried to suggest that defenders of the Second Amendment are those who believe civilians should be able to own assault weapons as they would a basketball or tennis racket. He won’t acknowledge the logical reluctance of people to bet their lives on a police force which cannot possibly respond instantaneously to every mortal threat from a would-be criminal. In addition, those who refuse to surrender the inalienable right to protect themselves do not also believe that just because the Army has assault weapons, tanks and missiles, then the citizens should be able to own them, too.

Popularity Never Justifies a Change in the Morality of Intrinsic Evils

Even if it were true that 70% of New Yorkers believe it’s OK to kill an unborn human, that doesn’t authorize anyone to put White-Out on Moses’ tablets. A mutation in public opinion doesn’t change the fact that humans in pre-Commandment days knew that murder is wrong. Contrary to another un-Catholic’s (Nancy Pelosi) claim a few years ago, the Church is certain when human life begins.4,5 No one in the public eye can promote laws which allow any form of murder and still call himself a Catholic.

Not Condoning Disordered Behavior Does not Make an Individual “Anti-Gay”

There are some conservatives who would deny members of the LGBT community fairness in housing, jobs, etc. on the basis of what they think is right. They often proclaim themselves to be Christian, but if that is so, then they are not being true to genuine Christianity. For example, an excerpt from Paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states this regarding those with homosexual tendencies: “…They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…”6

Nevertheless, Natural Law and the earliest teachings of Christianity going back to its Jewish roots in the Old Testament also prohibit anyone from changing the definition of marriage which states that it is a union between one man and one woman. That some Christians misused Scripture to deny racial equality, including interracial marriage, does not automatically disqualify all uses of Scripture with regard to any other social issue.

Marriage originated from religious institutions. Civil law became involved in order to address the physical aspects of marriage including break-ups (tax status, alimony, child support and separation of property). It can deal with the effects of marriage, but it cannot make up its own definition of what constitutes a marriage.

Message to Governor Andrew Cuomo

Political Conservatives, including many independents, normally do not advocate assault weapons for civilians as part of their defense of the Second Amendment. Lumping everyone together only damages your credibility.

The use of “anti-gay” is much more inflammatory than fact. Most adherents of Natural Law and those truly respectful of Judeo-Christian values do not hate those of LGBT persuasion. They merely acknowledge that marriage is not a secular invention which can be modified by public opinion.

Finally, you should be commended for your using “right-to-life” instead of the implied negative “anti-abortion.” However, if you really considered the complete form of “right-to-life”, you would realize that it also includes the abolishment of capital punishment — something you support. Perhaps you could better appreciate these “conservative issues” if you would listen to the wisdom of the Church you claim to belong to instead of the rationalizations of many other un-Catholics in the Democratic Party.

1 – Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo changed his position on abortion. Advocates for abortion said it was due to his recognition that “the political significance of abortion had grown dramatically in the wake of a recent United States Supreme Court decision allowing states to limit access to abortion.” He further employed a Pilate-like washing of his hands with, “’I feel absurd,’ he said. ‘Like I don’t know why the judgment is mine. Or an all-male court, except for one woman, or a mostly male Congress.’” from “Cuomo Takes Abortion Stance Favoring Women’s Right to Choose,” by Elizabeth Kolbert, www.nytimes.com, 9/11/1989

2 – Mario Cuomo tried to discard our entire human history and the meaning of marriage which elevates our male/female relationships above those of animals. In the interview, Cuomo said, “What does “marriage” mean? Well, to a lot of people, it means only heterosexuals joining in a permanent union. Fine. And if your religion, like Catholicism, says that it has to involve just heterosexuals and can’t involve people of the same sex, great! Then they won’t be married in the Catholic Church. And if your religion does allow it — whatever your religion is — fine!” from an “Interview with Mario Cuomo” by Religion & Ethics Newsweekly correspondent Lucky Severson on 4/23/2004 and posted 4/30/2004 on http://www.pbs.org

3 – from “Cuomo: Pro-Lifers ‘Have No Place’ in New York,” by Sandy Fitzgerald, www.newsmax.com, 1/18/2014

4 – Pelosi in an August 24, 2008 interview: “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” Posted on www.ewtn.com. There is more to a discussion of what St. Augustine actually wrote, but that is not the purpose of this article.

5 — In addition, every pope in Andrew Cuomo’s lifetime has reaffirmed the belief that life begins at conception. Pope Paul VI in his Humanae Vitae item #13, referred to Pope John XXIII’s statement, “Human life is sacred, from its very inception reveals the creating hand of God.”
In item #14, Paul VI wrote, “In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.” This paragraph carried a footnote relating it to the writings of Pope Pius XI in 1930, Pius XII in 1944 and 1951 and John XXIII in 1963.

I can hear the choruses of “What?!” and “No way’s.” Pill Practitioners have been declaring for 40+ years that chemical contraceptives have liberated couples, especially women.2 Unfortunately, the liberation was a mirage.

The emergence of these chemicals was hailed as one of the most significant events of the 20th century. That is true, but not for the betterment of society as it has been publicized. The secular world jumped for joy at the prospect of having the fun of sex while ignoring the duality inherent with marriage.3,5 It unwittingly equated human sexual relations with those of the animal world because we humans cannot control our reproductive inclinations any more than animals can apparently.

Instead of understanding sex as part of a committed marital relationship, it accelerated the notion that sex is merely a recreation – a recreation where men and women feel safer to have their fun and remain detached. Worse yet, it has lowered the opinion of the human condition to the point where pregnancy is now considered a “disease” by our federal government.6

So, how does this societal change reduce the perceived value of women? Now that many women feel freer to engage in non-committed relationships, they have received such a demotion. In 2010, there were 7.5 million couples living together which was a 13% increase in just one year. Also, in the U.S., 51% of adults over 18 were married, down from 57% in 2000.7

The “13% increase” in couples living together represents a big increase in lack-of-commitment living arrangements which have a disturbing tendency to result in simple, litigation-free breakups. The net result of these arrangements is women are more easily discarded – an attribute of a “sex object” – one of the things social awareness began protesting in the 1960’s.

The Pill was introduced with the claim it would free human sexuality from the bondage of natural consequences. Instead it increased slavery to desires and lowered an already deficient respect for women.

1 –Pope Paul VI, in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, section 17 under “Consequences of Artificial Methods,” wrote “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.” (translation provided by www.vatican.va)2 — “The pill has been responsible for a new revolution and has liberated women of our world. It has given them a new sexual freedom that has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand the women is able to have her own say in planning her family but on the other it has also made them more promiscuous.” (www.medindia.net, no posting date) The article proceeds to list what it views are advantages, but strangely, does not expand on the aspect of promiscuity!3 – “The spouses’ union achieves the two-fold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.”
“The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation and fecundity4.” (Paragraph 2363, Catechism of the Catholic Church,” Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO, 1994)4 – “Fecundity, derived from the word fecund, generally refers to the ability to reproduce. In demography, fecundity is the potential reproductive capacity of an individual or population.” (Wikipedia)5 — Thus, the problem with sex outside of marriage is made obvious, but only, of course, for those who have an interest in the Ten Commandments.6 – “…the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), at the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), has decided to re-define women’s health care yet again by mandating that … insurance providers give women a range of new “preventative services” free, no co-pay or deductible… These ‘preventative services’ will include birth control – all FDA-approved birth control, including proven abortion-causing drugs like ellaand Plan B… According to a Consensus Report released by the IOM on July 19, ‘The IOM defines preventative health services as measures – including medications, procedures, devices, tests, education and counseling – shown to improve well-being, and/or decrease the likelihood or delay the onset of a targeted disease or condition.’ Under these conditions, insured women will have access to free birth control because pregnancy has been redefined as a ‘targeted disease.’” (Kristan Hawkins, www.LifeNews.com, 8/5/2011)7 – Carol Morello, www.WashingtonPost.com, 12/14/2011